Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain
[color=black][color=silver]Each actor has defiantly put their own stamp on the character but the scripts had a lot to do with it as well. Bond has always been good at cashing in on trends and reinventing itself. "Moonraker" is pretty ridiculous but it came out two years after "Star Wars" so people loved it. It was the highest grossing Bond film (minus inflation) until "Goldeneye." "For Your Eyes Only" which came out after maybe my favorite Bond film of the Moore era. The Bond movies always seem to takes things just a little too far and then ground themselves again in the next film. For example "Diamonds Are Forever" was pretty campy and then we got "Live and Let Die" which is great. I already mentioned "For Your Eyes Only" coming after "Moonraker." "Die Another Day" got pretty ridiculous even though again it was financially successful and then we got "Casino Royale." It seems to be a bit of a cycle.
The Bond series has definitely gone through that cycle numerous times in it's lifetime.
'Moonraker' was an obvious ploy to cash in on the 'Star Wars' success just as 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' was. Although in fairness for all it's silliness I also quite enjoy 'Moonraker' as well.
But even the Connery films were getting lavish by the time Lazenby came in and muted things a little. 'OHMSS' is probably the first film in the series that in a way rebooted things a little bit, though in general the Moore and Brosnan films are probably still the most outlandishly stunt, gadget and gimmick obsessed of the films.